BioCode

[Thomas G. Lammers]

At 02:12 PM 05-27-98 +0200, Paul DESSART wrote:
>
>One point, however, looks rather illogical - but is said subject to
>discussion ("not regarded as an actual target"), namely the starting point
>of the Code: 1st January 2000. Why choosing such a banal, trivial date?
>Waiting one year more - namely 1st January 2001, the starting point
>would be simultaneously the 1st day of the 3rd millennium and the 1st
>day of the XXIst century. Not more exciting?

Is there ANY discussion group that is immune to the "what day does the new
millenium start on" thread?

GRANTED:
Decades have 10 years.
Centuries have 100 years.
Millenia have 1000 years.

BE IT RESOLVED that for the convenience of all, we collectively AGREE that
the very first decade of the very first century of the very first millenium
of the Christian Era got shorted, and was only 9 years long.

Having a decade 2000 years ago be short a year bothers me much less than the
rollover of the initial digit of the year be "banal, trivial".


Thomas G. Lammers

Classification, Nomenclature, Phylogeny and Biogeography
of the Campanulaceae, s. lat.

Department of Botany
Field Museum of Natural History
Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496 USA

e-mail:    tlammers at fmnh.org
office:          312-922-9410 ext. 317 (voice-mail)
home:     630-759-4280
fax:                312-427-2530
http:    www.fmnh.org/candr/academic_affairs/collection_report/cv_lammers.htm

-----------------------------------------------------

"Our schools are scared to tell students to sit down and shut up and learn;
drill it, memorize it, because you must master it, whether it's fun or not.
Children pay the price for our educational cowardice."
                              --- David Gelernter